Question for Teabaggers, Why Obama?

ginwilly · May 14, 2013

11 recessions since the depression. A pattern with the recoveries have always been the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. Until now. GDP growth peaked at 2.1% and has shrunken since. We've seen 13% growth under Reagan who took a different approach.

We had a pretty impressive 25 year run until Bush policies started the downturn. It's a shame we followed that up with even stupider economic policies. If we had followed it up with nothing we would be much better off. We have a record number of welfare, a record number of "disabled" citizens all while the largest segment of our population is aging. It's going to be a bumpy decade or so. If we do what Japan has done and expect different results we deserve what we get.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

ginwilly said:
Then you are an aggregate demand Keynesian.

Stimulus for the sake of stimulus is the opposite of austerity and very much fluid with Keynesian principles. The reason I say childlike is because you have to have the arrogance to think you can manipulate people's behavior in a consistent, predictable manner.

Austerity bad, stimulus bandaid, smashing capitalism good

You can't possibly try to deny that Rawn Pawl would have knowingly let the whole system crash violently leaving a power vacuum to be filled by industry. All this talk of tyranny of collectivism worked well to make people believe that supply could do alone what supply and demand are supposed to do together. You can't have a consumer driven economy if consumers have no money to spend.

A recession is nothing more than mass fear. The people in the world who are "arrogant enough to think they can manipulate people's behavior in a consistent, predictable manner", are the people who generate this fear and the people who make all advertizing and war. Now I won't deny that some of those people are Keynesians, but giving poor people money so they can eat doesn't seem so much like manipulation to me as say, feeding poor people.

Harrekin · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
Austerity bad, stimulus bandaid, smashing capitalism good

You can't possibly try to deny that Rawn Pawl would have knowingly let the whole system crash violently leaving a power vacuum to be filled by industry. All this talk of tyranny of collectivism worked well to make people believe that supply could do alone what supply and demand are supposed to do together. You can't have a consumer driven economy if consumers have no money to spend.

A recession is nothing more than mass fear. The people in the world who are "arrogant enough to think they can manipulate people's behavior in a consistent, predictable manner", are the people who generate this fear and the people who make all advertizing and war. Now I won't deny that some of those people are Keynesians, but giving poor people money so they can eat doesn't seem so much like manipulation to me as say, feeding poor people.

I'm afraid to argue against the merits of a different political/economic philosophy one must be able to defend their own first.

So how do the means of production get into the "people's hands" without stealing from their current owners?

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Harrekin said:
I'm afraid to argue against the merits of a different political/economic philosophy one must be able to defend their own first.

So how do the means of production get into the "people's hands" without stealing from their current owners?

How does one own land with out first stealing it?

Dr Kynes · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
I don't call them liberals, I call the people who stole the word libertarian liberals. I call democrats democrats.

And no, it is all liberals, from classical liberals to neoliberals who believe in free-market concepts.

your rowboat has only one oar.

you dont know what a classical liberal is, or how the "progressive" movement has twisted classical liberalism into a self-destructive ideology of endless post-modern self-hate

but then you dont know shit about socialism, feudalism, communism, fascism, republicanism, federalism or marxism either.

you are a retard on a soap box gibbering inanities at the crowd, and youre just one heckler away from hurling your feces.

Dr Kynes · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
How does one own land with out first stealing it?

by buying it. like my grandfather did, and like i shall.

you can live in your foolish hippy daydream of "all the people sharing all the world" but your bubble of deliberate ignorance will not protect you when you set up your shantytown on my melon patch.

your stupidity sheild is not bullet-proof.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
your rowboat has only one oar.

you dont know what a classical liberal is, or how the "progressive" movement has twisted classical liberalism into a self-destructive ideology of endless post-modern self-hate

but then you dont know shit about socialism, feudalism, communism, fascism, republicanism, federalism or marxism either.

you are a retard on a soap box gibbering inanities at the crowd, and youre just one heckler away from hurling your feces.

I'm so glad to have your rejection. I might have to rethink things if we ever agree.

Dr Kynes · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
I'm so glad to have your rejection. I might have to rethink things if we ever agree.

of course your self worth is based on an external locus.

you must have a villain against whom you may struggle or your entire fantasy world falls apart.

everything you know, and everything you think you know is entirely subjective, you cannot comprehend anything with an OBJECTIVE REALITY

you live in a fantasy world of absolutes, where evil is directly countered by good, and you are the protagonist. fortunately your bizarro-world universe is so alien to the experiences and understanding of intelligent people that your crazy yammering will never catch on, and your cult of personality is limited to you and your dog.

and your dog is starting to have doubts

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
of course your self worth is based on an external locus.

you must have a villain against whom you may struggle or your entire fantasy world falls apart.

everything you know, and everything you think you know is entirely subjective, you cannot comprehend anything with an OBJECTIVE REALITY

you live in a fantasy world of absolutes, where evil is directly countered by good, and you are the protagonist. fortunately your bizarro-world universe is so alien to the experiences and understanding of intelligent people that your crazy yammering will never catch on, and your cult of personality is limited to you and your dog.

and your dog is starting to have doubts

This intense love you have for me is unrequited. Stop following me around writing love letters.

Harrekin · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
This intense love you have for me is unrequited. Stop following me around writing love letters.

How about you tell us how the means of production gets into the workers hands without stealing from its current owner?

I know something for sure, in some of the jobs Iv worked I wouldn't want the idiots that I worked with in owning the place that my job depended on.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Harrekin said:
How about you tell us how the means of production gets into the workers hands without stealing from its current owner?

I know something for sure, in some of the jobs Iv worked I wouldn't want the idiots that I worked with in owning the place that my job depended on.

How about you tell us how private ownership of means of production and natural resources is not based on theft.

Harrekin · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
How about you tell us how private ownership of means of production and natural resources is not based on theft.

How about you actually answer a question?

Natural resources are distributed differently depending (generally speaking) on the Constitution of the nation in question (ours declares all natural resources property of the Govt on behalf of the people).

"Means of production" refers not to natural resources by the way, genius.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
Austerity bad, stimulus bandaid, smashing capitalism good

You can't possibly try to deny that Rawn Pawl would have knowingly let the whole system crash violently leaving a power vacuum to be filled by industry. All this talk of tyranny of collectivism worked well to make people believe that supply could do alone what supply and demand are supposed to do together. You can't have a consumer driven economy if consumers have no money to spend.

A recession is nothing more than mass fear. The people in the world who are "arrogant enough to think they can manipulate people's behavior in a consistent, predictable manner", are the people who generate this fear and the people who make all advertizing and war. Now I won't deny that some of those people are Keynesians, but giving poor people money so they can eat doesn't seem so much like manipulation to me as say, feeding poor people.

While I'm sure calling me a commy makes a good default retort to anything I argue, I'm just going to bump this, to which you replied, "So how do the means of production get into the "people's hands" without stealing from their current owners?"

This is just to highlight that any argument to which you can't mount suitable defense is a card that you must trump, with your immovable object, that I'm a commy who wants you to share underwear.

I'm not going to apologize for being a libertarian socialist.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Harrekin said:
How about you actually answer a question?

By voting Green.

http://www.gp.org/index.php

Harrekin · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
While I'm sure calling me a commy makes a good default retort to anything I argue, I'm just going to bump this, to which you replied, "So how do the means of production get into the "people's hands" without stealing from their current owners?"

This is just to highlight that any argument to which you can't mount suitable defense is a card that you must trump, with your immovable object, that I'm a commy who wants you to share underwear.

I'm not going to apologize for being a libertarian socialist.

Wtf are you rambling about?

Just answer the (fucking) question...

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

You're asking me if I believe in wealth redistribution.

And I'm telling you I don't believe in Job Creators.

Harrekin · May 14, 2013

abandonconflict said:
You're asking me if I believe in wealth redistribution.

And I'm telling you I don't believe in Job Creators.

Now I specifically asked you how would the "means of production" pass onto the workers from their current owners.

For example, how is Joe Soap compensated/whatever when the workers "gain control" over his Soap factory?

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

Harrekin said:
Now I specifically asked you how would the "means of production" pass onto the workers from their current owners.

For example, how is Joe Soap compensated/whatever when the workers "gain control" over his Soap factory?

Deciphering...

"Spend the next hour explaining something to me that I could learn for myself, so that I can misquote it and snip parts of it out of context. This is how I derail a topic when I can't reply to what is being discussed."

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

The state exists to protect private property. Private property is private liberty.

abandonconflict · May 14, 2013

You are hoping to describe socialism as a system where property is taken for use exclusively by one group with inadequate compensation to the rightful owner.

That is a good description for how things currently work, and it is called capitalism.

Question for Teabaggers, Why Obama?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads